Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about how the Council dealt with a planning application for a supported living development. There is insufficient evidence of Council fault to warrant an Ombudsman investigation. The matter does not cause Mr X a significant personal injustice. The Ombudsman cannot achieve the outcomes Mr X seeks.

The complaint

1. Mr X lives about half a mile away from a development site. The planning applicant sought permission to redevelop the site as a supported living facility.
2. Mr X complains the Council:
1. failed to follow due planning process;
2. delayed in responding to his complaint.
3. Mr X says the development will affect a number of residents. Mr X wants the Council to accept its failures, announce them on its website and in the local press, discipline staff involved, and censure local councillors involved.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we believe:

• it is unlikely we would find fault, or
• the fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. As part of my assessment I have:
• considered the complaint and the documents provided by Mr X;
• viewed relevant online planning documents and maps;
• issued a draft decision, inviting Mr X to reply.

Back to top

What I found

6. Mr X makes several complaints of faults in the way the Council dealt with the planning application for the supported living development. Mr X says the Council did not follow the proper planning process in determining the application.
7. The application was considered by the relevant officers and Members, including two Planning Panel meetings and a Members’ site visit. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council in how it dealt with the application to warrant an Ombudsman investigation.
8. Mr X says the Council should have allowed him to make his objections to a full Council meeting. The Council says this is outside its usual planning process, and in any event, the full Council would not have the power to overturn a decision made within its that planning process. The Council explained its process and declined Mr X’s request to speak to the full Council. I have not seen evidence of fault by the Council in not letting Mr X do this.
9. Mr X twice spoke to the relevant planning panel to object to the application. I consider he had the appropriate opportunity to give his views or evidence on the matter to those tasked with deciding the application. So even if it was fault to not let Mr X address the full Council, I do not consider the Council’s decision caused Mr X a significant personal injustice.
10. I have considered whether the application development itself causes Mr X injustice. Even if it there fault by the Council leading to the grant of the planning application, I do not consider the Ombudsman should investigate. This is because the development does not cause Mr X a significant personal injustice. I say this because Mr X lives about half a mile away from the site so there is no impact on his property’s amenity.
11. I recognise Mr X may be concerned as a local resident about the development’s future inhabitants. But the planning system the Council was required to apply here cannot control the development’s residents. It is the building’s use which is controlled by the planning system. C2 is the planning use class ‘for the provision of residential accommodation and care to people in need of care … other than a use within class C3’, which is for ‘dwelling houses’. The planning use class of C2 allows the developer to use the property for any purpose which falls under that use class. Furthermore, Mr X’s concerns about the property’s residents would be about what might happen in the future. The Ombudsman cannot deal with matters which have not happened.
12. I have also considered the outcomes Mr X seeks from his complaint. The Ombudsman cannot order councils to discipline staff or censure elected Members. He would only require a council to advertise its faults where he investigates and issues a formal report on a complaint, requiring a remedy with which the council refuses to comply. That requirement does not apply here. So the Ombudsman cannot achieve the outcomes Mr X seeks, which is a further reason for him not to investigate.
13. Mr X says the Council delayed in dealing with his complaint. The Ombudsman does not investigate complaints about council complaint processes where he does not intend to investigate the core matter. In any event, the Council accepts its reply was late and has apologised to Mr X. That is the outcome the Ombudsman would have sought for this issue had he investigated. There is no additional outcome he would achieve for Mr X regarding the delay, so there are no grounds for him to consider this issue further.

Back to top

Final decision

14. The Ombudsman should not investigate this complaint. This is because:
• there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council to justify an Ombudsman investigation;
• the matter does not cause Mr X a significant personal injustice;
• the Ombudsman cannot achieve the outcomes Mr X seeks.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman